Not the best headline I've ever read. It left me scratching my head, wondering whether a Cardinal had authorized paying abusers in a newspaper called the Milwaukee Post.

Apparently this isn't even the only headline the article has had, because at the bottom of the column, in tiny, hard-to-read grey print, it says:

A version of this article appeared in print on May 31, 2012, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Cardinal Authorized Payments To Abusers.

That would have been even more misleading -- implying that the Cardinal (who we soon learn is Cardinal Dolan of New York) was authorizing payments to abusers in New York.

But regardless of where the alleged paying of abusers took place, there is still a further misleading aspect to the headline -- and to the article itself. It is the word "paying."

Consider this: Suppose you are walking down the street and a homeless person approaches you and asks you for some money. You give him the money. Would that justify a headline saying that you have been paying the homeless?

Or suppose you were with your teenage son or daughter and they asked if they could give some money to the homeless person as an act of kindness and you said Yes. Would that justify a headling saying that you authorized paying the homeless?

Or maybe you send your grandchild $20 for his birthday, because he's at that age where he's hard to buy for and what he really wants is money. Have you paid your grandson?

Not all disbursements of money constitute "paying." Gifts, grants, charitable donations, and other forms of transferring money from one person to another do not automatically count as "paying."

By using this word, Goodstein calls to mind certain connotations. Specifically: When we pay someone we typically do so as a fee for some good or service they have provided us with. At a minimum, we do so as some kind of compensation or reward -- things that are not part of the previously-mentioned forms of giving money.

So Goodstein has framed the matter in a way that that suggests Cardinal Dolan was rewarding pedophiles for their behavior.

Was he?

Let's keep reading . . .

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments[note the word] of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.

Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” [note the word, this time with criminal overtones]to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.”

If you don't accept Goodstein's account at face value and Google "false, preposterious and unjust" you'll find an account of what happend "at the time," which turns out to be back in 2006. Here's one such account:

Money Given to Clergyman Accused of Sexual Abuse Questioned [they're already off to a better start than the NTY; "Money Given" is a more neutral description than "Paying"]

TheMilwaukeeChannel.com
September 7, 2006

Milwaukee -- A local advocate group for the survivors of sexual abuse from clergy members is questioning a $10,000 payment to a former clergyman accused of sexually abusing young boys.

The Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP) released a videotaped deposition Thursday as part of an $18 million settlement last week between nine abuse victims and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

The videotape includes a confession by former clergyman Franklyn Becker[Note this name! It's going to be important]. Becker said he was transferred from parish to parish in the 1970s and '80s [during the time of Rembert Weakland, before Cardinal Dolan arrived], despite allegations of sexual encounters with teenage boys. He said he was even posted at parishes with others who shared his desires.

"I was stationed with a classmate of mine who also had a predilection for teenage boys," Becker said on the tape, which was recorded last month.

At one point while still a priest in the 1980s, Becker said he sent for information from the "Man-Boy Love Association," a group advocating sexual relations between men and boys. That led to an FBI investigation.

"I had a visitor from the FBI at my apartment. I was taken aback by it. Well, the only reason was I had heard about the organization, I was curious and had sent for their mailing and was on their mailing list," Becker said. [Uhh . . . right.]

After the arrival of Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Becker was removed from active ministry in 2002.[So Dolan, who arrived in 2002, took action on the guy the very year he arrived] He was completely removed from the priesthood in 2004 by Pope John Paul II.

Upon his release from the archdiocese, Becker was given $10,000 to cover expenses until his Medicaid supplements began. [So, according to this account, it wasn't a "payment." But watch how the SNAP regional director is about to spin things . . . ]

Victims' advocates are questioning the money.

"I don't think people donating to the archdiocese are going to be very happy to hear that this man was given any money. For what? He is rewarded. Is it a pension? Is he given a severance? Is this a bonus?" abuse victims' advocate Peter Isely said. [You see the kind of connotations this "payment" language carries.]

Late Thursday, Dolan released a statement in response, writing, "For anyone to assert that this money was a payoff or occurred in exchange for Becker agreeing to leave the priesthood is completely false, preposterous, and unjust. What this was, instead, was an act of charity, in-line with Catholic Social Teaching, that allowed a person to obtain health insurance coverage he simply could not afford on his own. If people want to criticize me for that charity, so be it."

The archbishop maintains the clergy is doing everything possible to prevent clergy sexual abuse in the future.

Becker, who now lives in a Mayville apartment, was never charged with any crime. A number of people came forward years later alleging abuse, and he was arrested a few years ago for a California case, but the statute of limitations had expired in all cases and he was released.

So, according to Cardinal Dolan, this was a humanitarian gesture, not a "payment." If that's his understanding of the event then you can understand how the Cardinal would regard it as "completely false, preposterous, and unjust" for "anyone to assert that this money was a payoff or occurred in exchange for Becker agreeing to leave the priesthood."

But is the understanding Cardinal Dolan displayed of the event in 2006 accurate?

Back to Goodstein . . .

But a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.

A spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed on Wednesday that payments of as much as $20,000 were made to “a handful” of accused priests “as a motivation” not to contest being defrocked. The process, known as “laicization,” is a formal church juridical procedure that requires Vatican approval, and can take far longer if the priest objects.

Okay, so here we have a claim that there is a document (which Goodstein fails to link, so we can't read it for ourselves) that says the archdiocese did make such "payments" (there's that word again). We also have a spokesman seemingly confirming that "payments" (Goodstein's word) were made.

I must say that I don't like the choppy way we are only given six words attributed to this source. I would be very curious to know what he said with more context. I'd also be curious to know the date of the document in question, because if it's after 2002 then it might not apply to the Becker case at all. In that case, Cardinal Dolan's statement regarding the money given to Becker might be entirely accurate, and Goodstein would be entirely misleading by suggesting (apparently) that the Cardinal lied about the Becker case back in 2006.

Or maybe the truth is something else. I can't know from this piece because of how little Goodstein gives us to go on.

But regardless of whether Becker was given money to encourage him to not fight laicization, let's go with the premise that some priests were. Is that a bad thing?

“It was a way to provide an incentive to go the voluntary route and make it happen quickly, and ultimately cost less,” said Jerry Topczewski, the spokesman for the archdiocese. “Their cooperation made the process a lot more expeditious.”

Okay.

One of the things the SNAP people have been up in arms about is that sex abusers must be ejected from the priesthood as swiftly as possible.

They've also been up in arms about dioceses not having enough money for victims.

So this procedure would (a) get them out of the priesthood faster and (b) leave the diocese with more money for things like compensating victims.

If those are their goals, shouldn't SNAP people approve of such a plan?

What do they want? The diocese to take a long, drawn-out process that keeps sex abusers "enfrocked" for a longer period of time and that leaves less money for victims?

You would kind of think they'd oppose that, too.

So it looks to me like this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, where no matter how responsibly you try to handle a situation, SNAP is going to act irrationally and . . . uh . . . snap . . . no matter what.

Also, for what it's worth, Mark Shea points out that the exactsameprocedure is used to get sexually problematic public school teachers out of their jobs and away from kids.

That's not to say that one should approve of this. One could hold that, in any given case, too much money is being given to get a problematic person, or even that no money should be given and the longer, more expensive route should be taken.

My point is: This is a judgment call, and it is not unreasonable in principle. A reasonable person can approve this kind of thing. One is not ipso fact irrational or evil for trying to get sexual predators out of their jobs in the fastest, most cost-effective way possible.

Cardinal Dolan, who is president of the national bishops’ conference and fast becoming the nation’s most high-profile Roman Catholic cleric, did not respond to several requests for comment.

A victims advocacy group, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, sent a letter of protest to the current archbishop of Milwaukee on Wednesday asking, “In what other occupation, especially one working with families and operating schools and youth programs, is an employee given a cash bonus for raping and sexually assaulting children?”

Notice also how they're hyperventilating, portraying the "let's get rid of this guy as fast and cheaply as possible" funds as "cash bonus[es] for raping and sexually assaulting children."

Experts in the Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse say that payouts to dismissed priests are not uncommon. When a man becomes a priest, the church is expected to care for his needs for a lifetime.

Yes, which is one reason why severing ties with a priest is not the same as firing an employee. Priests are united to their bishops in a way that means they are not "at will" employees who can be dismissed at any time. Because a priest stripped of his job is so financially vulnerable there is an internal process that allows a priest to defend himself, and if he chooses to do so then it will (a) take longer and (b) cost more.

The newly revealed document is the minutes of a meeting of the finance council of the Milwaukee archdiocese from March 7, 2003, which Cardinal Dolan attended. The archdiocese was facing a flood of potential lawsuits by people claiming abuse, and the church’s insurance company was refusing to cover the costs because it said the church had been negligent. The minutes noted that “unassignable priests” — those suspected of abuse — were still receiving full salaries.

Huh.

2003.

So after Dolan had already removed Becker from pastoral ministry. Maybe Cardinal Dolan's account of the event was entirely accurate after all and the NYT pieces unjustly implied he was lying? What do you think, Laurie?

The minutes say that those at the meeting discussed a proposal to “offer $20,000 for laicization ($10,000 at the start and $10,000 at the completion the process).” Instead of salary, they would receive a $1,250 monthly pension benefit, and, until they found another job, health insurance.

One might disagree with this, or these figures, but it doesn't sound irrationally evil to me.

BTW, you remember how I said to remember the name "Franklyn Becker" because it'd be important? Here's why . . .

The first known payment in Milwaukee was to Franklyn Becker, a former priest with many victims. Cardinal Dolan said in response to a reporter’s question at the time that the payment was “an act of charity,” so that Mr. Becker could pay for health insurance.

According to church documents, Mr. Becker was accused of abusing at least 10 minors, and given a diagnosis of pedophilia in 1983. The church paid more than $16 million to settle lawsuits involving him and one other priest.

Whoa! Laurie!

You introduced us to Franklyn Becker back in the second paragraph of your story -- only you didn't name him then.

Now, in the next-to-next-to-last paragraph, you introduce him again as if he is an entirely different person! You also don't reveal that the claim Cardinal Dolan made regarding it being an act of charity so that Becker could have health coverage was, in fact, the very same statement that you quoted earlier in which he dismissed the "payoff" idea as "false, preposterous, and unjust."

This is unprofessional reporting no matter how you look at it, Laurie.

Either you have (a) inadvertently caused your readers to think (unless they fact-check you like I did) that the initial "notorious pedophile" from paragraph 2 of your story is an entirely different person than the "Franklyn Becker" you introduce in paragraph 11 or (b) you have deliberately done this in some kind of attempt to make Cardinal Dolan look worse by multiplying the cases against him and splitting up the facts relevant to this single case so that the reader cannot make an informed judgment.

Either way, shame on you.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in January 2011, in the face of potential lawsuits by 23 accusers.

And you wonder why they'd want to conserve money when possible in the wake of the disastrous Weakland era.

Like I said, I'm not saying one needs to agree with the actions taken by Cardinal Dolan when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee. These things involve judgment calls, and rational people of good will can judge them differently.

But what Goodstein did was unprofessional -- at best -- and a rational person could easily view it as a malicious hit piece.

Raping children, abusing children, covering up the rapes of children is not only a sin, it is a FELONY.

So as far as I am concerned, as soon as you fire all credibly accused Cardinals, like Timothy Dolan, whom participated in the cover ups of the rapes of children and teens by pedophile, hebephile and ephebophile priests of the Roman Catholic Church, have them arrested and tried for their crimes….then we have nothing to talk about…because you are all supporting the Pedophile Pimps of your church than you are the real head of your church.

Jesus said it would be better for you to tie a huge boulder around your neck and throw yourselves into the deepest of lakes than to harm a single hair on the head of a child.

I would suggest the Roman Catholics start buying lots and lots and lots of rope and go find themselves a big boulder field.

Posted by AndrewSB49 on Saturday, Jun, 23, 2012 12:20 PM (EDT):

So facilitating & covering up the rape and buggery of children shows a tolerant mindset. I imagine then that reporting the rape and buggery of children to medical and legal authorities means the reporter is acting intolerantly! Thanks for clearing that up Kathleen.

Posted by Alinka on Thursday, Jun, 21, 2012 12:36 PM (EDT):

Sadly, Kathleen, Catholics like you seem to equate religious tolerance with the tolerance of child abuse. To you accepting your brand of christian religion means accepting child abuse by catholic clergy as a norm.

No amount of demagoguery of your part can change this plain fact. Sorry, its a stalemate.

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Jun, 21, 2012 11:48 AM (EDT):

Sadly, articles on this issue serve to generate posts from the religiously intolerant.
In the same way, articles concerning immigration generate posts from the racially intolerant.You can support enforcing immigration laws without being a racist, but expect all the racists to jump on your wagon.

Posted by Alinka on Thursday, Jun, 21, 2012 11:04 AM (EDT):

your 2nd p:

“”“Obviously it serves as a platform for those who are hostile to the Church.Just glancing through some of the above comments shows that to be the case.”“”

of course. Speaking against the cover up of abuse and molestation in order to protect the image of the Church is a very hostile - to the Church - position. We don’t deny it.

As noted yesterday, June 20, “Sadly, Reality predicts few critics will do that in this forum; on the bright side for Truth, all who back someone afraid to “meet specs” lose credibility”.
.
Until Laurie Goodstein at the very least meets specs, her supporting commenters have no credibility. Given just logic—to say nothing about the crucial importance of the election – there are much higher priorities requiring attention than further listening to detractors of both the Church and good Churchmen. Since NYT writer Goodstein gives ample reason not to trust her and since a pseudo-Goodstein might be “created” for someone’s fun-time in these forums, any submitted “specs-meeting comment from NYT Laurie Goodstein” will require independent, checkable confirmation with thorough cooperation directly by Laurie Goldstein lest anyone waste precious time.

Of course there are details that,if we only knew them, would fully justify sexual molestation of minors. As well as some “details of the case” that justify the accused former clergy quiet, no-police-involved, paid-for release into the world, free to molest more.

Clearly molestation is OK with your Catholic moral code. We understand your position, Kathleen and William F. Whats a few raped children when the reputation of a Cardinal is at stake!

Thank you for making it so clear. Will definitely spread the word.

Posted by AndrewSB49 on Thursday, Jun, 21, 2012 4:32 AM (EDT):

Cardinal Dolan save a world of hurt for the Church by dishing out wads of cash to fellow clergy who raped children. The cost of all this has been, and continues to be, a whole world of hurt for vulnerable children.

My above Challenge-Comment of Jun 1, 2012 8:39 AM (EST) still stands, with its specs. God-respecting Cardinal Dolan has been unjustly treated by NYT writer Laurie Goodstein who misled others to do similarly.
.
I haven’t seen here a Goodstein counter-comment that meets those specs; in fact, there was no attempt at all unless the finder somehow missed it. She seems to understand that when things are complex and you have a personal or job agenda to project and protect that you dare not take up a challenge that will end in exposing you. It reminds of that scene from the Wizard of Oz when toto inadvertently reveals the “Wizard’s” deceit which then causes the good intentioned, pretend-Wizard to blurt out, in panic, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” as he attempts in vain to hide his impossible identity and pretense. Yes, too late!
.
And that’s where Laurie Goldstein is now, at the stage of the curtain partially pulled back, only she doesn’t know what to say because she’s on the spot – a LOT more public-spot than inside the 1939 Hollywood-set Oz Castle. So, her panic-of-choice is dead-silence instead of a counter-comment by her for she knows there ARE holes in her story that she should be ashamed of.
.
Far better for her if she repents and admits she was unfair to Cardinal Dolan. Concerning commenters on her side, they share in the same problem. None could face God’s questioning of their approaches. However, Laurie and friends are fortunate for it’s never too late to sincerely choose to be Fair and Just. Sadly, Reality predicts few critics will do that in this forum; on the bright side for Truth, all who back someone afraid to “meet specs” lose credibility.
.
I may have differences with specific hierarchy and be obliged on occasion to publicly speak on it in a respectful manner. That’s OK when something is very serious, for hierarchy are people, too, with their own degrees of imperfections. God established His Church-on-Earth to be rather fully occupied by imperfect leaders and followers. It is by HIS protection that The Catholic Church grows and survives through to the End of Time.

Posted by AndrewSB49 on Wednesday, Jun, 20, 2012 12:34 PM (EDT):

I imagine paying-off a clerical abuser with a big sum of money is a sure way of showing hostility towards Jesus Christ - I think cardinal Dolan would have heard some passing references to Him as he glided his way up the Vatican pole.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Jun, 20, 2012 9:28 AM (EDT):

You know, unless one has the full details of this case,& I’m guessing few readers do,what purpose does it serve to discuss it in this way?
Obviously it serves as a platform for those who are hostile to the Church.Just glancing through some of the above comments shows that to be the case.

Posted by Terah James on Thursday, Jun, 14, 2012 7:00 PM (EDT):

I was thinking about this subject. While I do not think it is a “Payoff” or money given to these men with sinister motives, I wondered why there was a policy to give so much money to priests that have offended, those that cannot be given a ministry, but there is NO money for good men that chose to leave the priesthood for other reasons, some after 15-25 years of loyal service. I don’t think they even get a “thank you”. Why not? Why the double-standard? Am I wrong?

Posted by Alinka on Thursday, Jun, 14, 2012 9:56 AM (EDT):

Valerie,

So one of them was arrested, what about others?See, if a person did nothing wrong, he wouldnt have accepted the hush money just to quickly, and quietly, go away.There would be no reason to send him away! He would stay and prove his innocence, and the Church would be better off, to show the world that the accusers were false.

Dolan paid off those who he knew were REAL MOLESTERS.Otherwise why would he pay them, and why would they accept it?

Valerie, as a christian how can you advocate letting child molesters quietly out into the world to continue molest kids,just to preserve the image of the Church?

Catholic Church is indeed swallowed by evil, how sad. It should remian in decline until it changes it’s evil, godless ways.

Posted by Valerie on Tuesday, Jun, 12, 2012 5:11 PM (EDT):

First of all, Alinka, Becker WAS arrested and handed over to the the authorities. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. It wasn’t “quiet”, there was new coverage…and still is.
And 10,000…a lot of money, yes. BUT, certainly not enough to LIVE off of for the rest of time. I would hardly consider 10,000 a “pay off”. If I were to be paid off, you better believe I would be expecting a hell of a lot more to than that, I wanna be comfortable. The fact that he was coming out of the priesthood, where you are taken care of by the church until you die, that is not a lot of money.
Do I agree with the money given to him? maybe, maybe not.
Would I ever agree with the church “covering” these things up, no. not at all.
But I believe Cardinal Dolan when he says it was an act of charity. The Church doesn’t HAVE to give him anything. But, I’m sure laicization doesn’t just happen over night. That would also be unjust. What if the person accusing the said priest was lying? You think people don’t lie about these things? We are all human beings, and in order to be “just” they would also need to do some detective work and make sure they are making the right decisions. They can’t just “fire” a priest.

As for people being tired of the church arguing about this stuff happening in schools, get over it. People make a big deal about these things happening in Churches. Am I any less horrified that it’s happening with in a community that I love? Absolutely not, but again we are human beings…these things will happen because HUMAN BEINGS have the opportunity to commit them. These men are sick, and I don’t look at it as priests who have done these things, I look at them as LIARS and IMPOSTORS.
Does it make the Church look less bad? probably not. But I don’t believe in what the Catholic Church teaches because of her people, I believe in what the church teaches because of Her 2000 years worth of tradition, and what the Bible says. Not to say that I don’t trust what the people of the Church say, but I don’t have my faith because of Her people. My faith was given to me by God.

It sucks that this is the kind of stuff people of the Catholic faith have to fight against. It really does, but it doesn’t steal my joy or faith, it reminds me that priests are no less human than I am, and they need our prayers just as badly. So instead of people criticizing the Church and her priests, why don’t you pray for them?

Posted by Alinka on Tuesday, Jun, 12, 2012 9:04 AM (EDT):

SamiIzdat, thanks.

So the comments don’t end up on a nasty, godless Motherboard’s note above, I will make a real post:

The immorality of Catholics and Catholic symps here is truly disgusting. They are oblivious to plain facts that in EVERY case – be it a definitely recurring child molestation, witnessed by dozens; a mere suspicion of molestation; an old case with expired stature of limitations; or even a hardly provable in court case of child abuse - the proper line of action is not to go thru laicization or quiet payoff release, but contacting the authorities (police). It might take years for justice to be done, and yes, law system is not perfect, it might not result in any arrests. But that is what Dolan, any bishop, etc. or any decent human being should do.

Shame on you, people.Tina, ScottW, Motherboard, etc..Your hearts are full of unspeakable evil. You are justifying a release of a former priest, a molester, into society by a quiet and efficient process, without making it public, thus allowing him to continue to molest kids.

Posted by Motherboard on Thursday, Jun, 7, 2012 12:17 PM (EDT):

Cardinal Dolan offered the money on the condition that the priest(s) not fight the process of laicization. So, in effect, it was a payment—because something was indeed expected in exchange for the money. It got these creeps out of the priesthood before they could cost the diocese any MORE money in lawsuits. As one of those liberal Catholics who consistently puts her hard earned money into the collection basket, I appreciate Dolan’s pragmatism.

Goldstein’s article quoted Dolan as well as other Catholic experts that said payments to dismissed priests were not uncommon—essentially making all the points that you make. They also asked SNAP for a quote, a reasonable thing for a journalist to do because to write a story where you only quote church sources would be…unethical. SNAP sees the payments as bonuses for rapists. The church sees them as charity to the down and out. Dolan would have been smarter to skip the charity BS and just say point blank that paying the priests to go away without fanfare was a smart business decision.

You can call it charity if you want, but the truth is that if those priests had stayed on the payroll, they would have cost the church considerably more money. It was more like insurance than charity, and I’m fine with that.

I think your claim of “media bias” is on pretty shaky grounds.

Posted by Samizdat on Wednesday, Jun, 6, 2012 10:51 PM (EDT):

That’s right, Alinka. Dolan should have called the police himself; he should NOT have allowed these pedophiles simply to move on into any other community, whether within the Church or not. It astonishes me that people like Scott W. think any other course of action can be justified.

Posted by Alinka on Wednesday, Jun, 6, 2012 6:18 PM (EDT):

You want “Dolan solution”, Scott? It has been given already , many times here- Dolan. Calls. The. Police. Law inforcement takes it from that point on. Child molesters -and that what those priests were- are not Dolan’s responsibility any more.

See, if he were to catch a priest robbing a church’s safe,lets say. He calls the police, informesthem of a robbery and gives the theif into the hands of the law. Same with any other crime, but especially child molestation.

Posted by Scott W. on Wednesday, Jun, 6, 2012 4:56 PM (EDT):

A lot of these kids will spend the rest of their lives in therapy. Some have been so guilt-ridden by the abuse that they commit suicide. Where is your Christian charity for these kids?? I don’t see any on this board. It is not lack of charity, but a common-sense notion that no one should waste time talking about something that isn’t in dispute. So we stick to the topic at hand. So let’s try for something illuminating: You obviously don’t like that Dolan got rid of them, but tell me, let’s say Dolan withheld the money and decided to put the priest through a canonical process of removal. Would you be patting him on the back? Somehow I doubt it, but rather the complaint would be, “Pedophile priests are still on the payroll! RAWR!” So, give us your Dolan solution that wouldn’t have you flying apart like a helicopter with its rear rotor shot off.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Jun, 6, 2012 4:22 PM (EDT):

AndrewSB49,
The original question was regarding doubts about one’s comment being posted.Other Catholic sites use charity or lack thereof as a moderating tool for comments.This site does not appear to.

Posted by AndrewSB49 on Wednesday, Jun, 6, 2012 12:28 PM (EDT):

@CeCi Castillo What do you mean by “” Charitable & non-charitable”“? According to cardinal Dolan the transfer of €20,000 into the bank account of a priest who rapes children is “Charitable”; so I guess “non-charitable” must mean calling emergency services, to help an abused child, and the police to pursue the perpetrator and those protecting and facilitating child abuse!

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Jun, 6, 2012 10:03 AM (EDT):

CeCi Castillo ,
Actually I’ve failed to see any type of moderation in these threads.Charitable & non-charitable posts alike are printed.
This subject seems almost impossible to discuss without political & anti-Catholic bias creeping in.
Children are vulnerable to sexual abuse because they’re easy targets.And they’re easier targets in certain circumstances, most of which do not involve clergy or church staff.If you work with abused kids daily you already know that.

Posted by CeCi Castillo on Tuesday, Jun, 5, 2012 10:31 PM (EDT):

I doubt very much that this post will be printed but I just had to coment on this subject. After reading the posts on this subject I’m really appalled at the lengths “Good Catholics” on these boards will go to defending pedophile priests and the hierarchy who protects them. Too bad you’re expending so much energy on this HHS Mandate instead of demanding that the priests and hierarchy stop this horrendous sexual abuse cover up. Yes abortion is an abomination and so is contraception but what about these poor innocent kids? Is their abuse any less of an abomination? Are they less important? Do any of you have any idea the damage that was done to these kids by these pedophile priests??? A lot of these kids will spend the rest of their lives in therapy. Some have been so guilt-ridden by the abuse that they commit suicide. Where is your Christian charity for these kids?? I don’t see any on this board. Most of you are tripping all over yourselves trying to find some way to defend what Cardinal Dolan did in paying off those pedophile priests. I work with sexually abused children on a daily basis and trust me, they are all train wrecks.

Posted by Wild Rumpus on Tuesday, Jun, 5, 2012 2:06 PM (EDT):

Oh Christian apologists, you can spin anything to make yourselves look either justified or victimized.

You can argue semantics all you want, but the fact remains that the Catholic Church is regularly involved in “acts of charity” to buy off pedophile priests (Cardinal Mahoney). Those same people who give pedophile priests $20,000 “donations” to quietly bury their sex crimes then go on to preach about the evils of gay marriage.

You can invent all the justifications you like or carefully choose your words to twist the blame as much as you like, but the facts remain. Instead of calling the police and looking after the victims, Dolan gave a child molester $20,000 to quietly go away.

Posted by MPSchneiderLC on Monday, Jun, 4, 2012 11:50 AM (EDT):

For me it is very simple. If he has to pay them another year if they contest and draw out the proces knowing they will lose, or give them half a year’s salary not to contest; I have no issue with that.

Once you are ordained, you have the right to a salary; until you are kicked out of the priesthood - that is the law so bishops can’t drop a 65 year old priest who doesn’t perform like he did at 45.

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Jun, 4, 2012 5:53 AM (EDT):

Bishop Dolan did exactly what he was supposed to do given his dogmatic primary allegiance to the Church. As taxpayers, Milwaukeeans should ask why their law enforcement officials gave such deference to the priests and the religious elite who protected them.

Secular justice officials made the grievous error in trusting or expecting that Church officials had any willingness or ability to police to their own ranks. Religious orders do not vow to uphold our laws, they are only looking out for the best interests of their religious organization as they see fit.

The prosecutors need to these guys in jail for complicity, or we need to get new prosecutors..

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Jun, 4, 2012 5:45 AM (EDT):

“Because a priest stripped of his job is so financially vulnerable there is an internal process that allows a priest to defend himself…”

Are priest any more financially vulnerable than anyone else who,loses their job? Contrariwise, priests are educated and arguably have job skills, so their vulnerability would not seem to be any more than anyone else.

Posted by Jimbo on Monday, Jun, 4, 2012 1:33 AM (EDT):

I’m afraid that’s a flimsy argument. Delete the word “payment” if you like, it’s till a fact that the wrongdoers were offered money to leave.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, Jun, 3, 2012 7:17 PM (EDT):

Jacob S: No sane person did claim ordination took away a man’s capacity for sin. You’re refuting an argument I didn’t make. The sexual abuse crisis has showed that priests, bishops, and cardinals are capable of committing henious sins…just like everyone else.

“The deference to a person who has sacrificed so much to be a priest is deserved to a certain extent, but in no way does that imply that they cannot sin.”

This is a non sequitur. The second part of your sentence doesn’t follow logically from the first. How does the deservedness of deference to someone who sacrificed much to the priesthood imply (or not) that he’s incapable of sin?

I’d ask why to any extent does someone who gave up much to become a priest deserving of any deference?

“a priest (in general terms) is not by the (isolated) fact that he’s a priest necessarily any less likely to sin than a public school teacher.”

I completely agree! A man’s standing as a priest in and of itself makes him no more or less moral than a public school teacher, housewife, cop, or CEO. Years of seminary training and discernment and the existiential changes he is belived to have undergone do not change a person’s moral make up.

@ T. Audrey Glamour: What’s even more interesting is how many archdiocese around the world are holding secret files on clergy who have received approved and authorised payments from their superiors!

Posted by T. Audrey Glamour on Sunday, Jun, 3, 2012 11:07 AM (EDT):

It’s really interesting that Goodstein’s article did not have a place for comments. (Or maybe I missed that?)

But I see the call got out to come on over here and speak your mind. I wonder how many commenters here have read both articles?

Posted by Rover Serton on Saturday, Jun, 2, 2012 8:38 AM (EDT):

Interstingly, Jimmy’s article is making it in the Atheist blogosphere as reference to morals. Equating giving money to homeless people vs. giving money to suspected criminals.

Jimmy, I’m an atheist but I enjoy your normally well thought out commentary. I enjoy listening to you on WETN. I think you really missed the mark in feeling the need to make this stain look like it really isn’t there. Semantics don’t play well with moral failings.

Posted by Gundy53 on Saturday, Jun, 2, 2012 7:38 AM (EDT):

If these minsters of Christ really believed in their own religious tenets, they would have sent every single child abuser to the proper authorities from DAY ONE. They would not have transferred them, covered them up, sent them to Rome, payed them off, or retired them. I have to conclude that every single one of the hierarchy who aided and abetted these pedophiles does not believe in God, Hell, the words of Jesus Christ and are only covering their asses and fronting for the power and money the church provides for them. There is NO OTHER explanation that covers why they did and do the things they have.

Posted by AndrewSB49 on Saturday, Jun, 2, 2012 5:43 AM (EDT):

Jimmy, you missed out the bit between finding out a priest is raping children and discussions on lodging $20,000 into the rapist’s bank account - you know that bit where you pick up the phone and dial 911 and ask for emergency medical services for the priest’s victim and report a crime to the police.

Now I wonder what is it about a mindset that misses the obvious?

Posted by Alinka on Saturday, Jun, 2, 2012 5:37 AM (EDT):

“”” A bishop who hears that one of his priests has been accused of molesting a child should advise the accusers to go to the police”“”

No, TeaPot562,your premise is wrong!! Remember Joe Paterno case? Didn’t it teach us anything? It was repeated multiple times -
WHEN ONE HEARS THE ACCUSATION about one of his subordinates,coworkers, etc. in our case, when the bishop hears the accusation about one of his priests, HE IS OBLIGATED TO GO TO THE POLICE HIMSELF.

If your child, your child’s friend, etc. is telling you about being sex.abused by a teacher, parent, or anybody, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE POLICE!!!
its YOUR responsibility. Dolan is an accomplice in child molesting cases if he failed to do it.

Its crazy to read some catholics and cath.symps here. People, are you so blinded by your digusting church you yourself willing to be criminals?

Posted by enness on Saturday, Jun, 2, 2012 2:06 AM (EDT):

If it gets them out faster, I don’t see the issue. I don’t see how it precludes their being dealt civil justice either.

Posted by TeaPot562 on Saturday, Jun, 2, 2012 12:56 AM (EDT):

A bishop who hears that one of his priests has been accused of molesting a child should advise the accusers to go to the police. The bishop himself does not necessarily have any proof of the accusation - only second hand or third hand (or higher orders) reporting.
For a conviction, someone has to be willing to testify IN COURT as to the time, place and person of the alleged crime.
From SNAP’s view, anyone who is a cleric - priest or bishop - in the Catholic Church is automatically evil. That view is not sustainable in court. For some individuals, conviction will occur, but based on real evidence, presented in court.
TeaPot562

Posted by rentstoohigh on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 11:42 PM (EDT):

Your article is wordy and hard to follow. It’s filled with red and bold letters which further confuse the reader. I had to stop reading because the red and bold lettering and the way that sentences are spaced gave me a headache. I am sure you are trying to defend Cardinal Dolan, but I cannot be sure. My impression is that you are just trying to grab the reader’s attention. But I still do not know what your real intentions are. Why not be more clear. If Dolan is being calumniated, just say so then go on to explain why you think this is so. Your commentary is silly and the samples you use to make your point are not serious. This is a serious topic. Making fun of it does not help clear the Cardinal’s good name and in fact you make yourself appear in the headline as if you are against the cardinal. I don’t know.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 9:58 PM (EDT):

Right on, Terah.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 9:57 PM (EDT):

Mark: please post indisputable proof of your allegations.

Posted by BobN on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 8:58 PM (EDT):

Wow. Just wow.

On the other hand, your concerns can certainly be addressed by the good Cardinal. All he has to do is release any and all documentation related to the uh… transaction.

Posted by Mark on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 8:33 PM (EDT):

It is fine if you are giving someone YOUR OWN money. But Dolan wasn’t giving them his own money… he was giving them the church’s money and then lying to the congregation about it. If it wasn’t wrong, then why did he feel he had to keep it a secret and then break one of the Commmandments to protect that secret?

Posted by Terah James on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 7:47 PM (EDT):

Seems to me that more is being made about this than need be. When a man is let go, he would need to have money, to begin a new life. Unless a person was going to prison, he would have to take care of himself. Each instance was different, and it would seem that making procedure the same makes sense. That is not to diminish what was done. I agree that INTENT is of utmost importance. I just see this in a less cynical fashion, that others on this post. I think Card. Dolan deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 7:38 PM (EDT):

Yep, Norma…it’s about the INTENT, the INTENT of the ACCUSED (in this case, Cardinal Dolan), regardless of the perception of others. And officially removing a priest from active ministry (defrocking) hardly resembles moving on discreetly.

I’m beginning to discern that those who have commented to the extreme, negatively, etc., either didn’t read the article…or, didn’t read all of it…or, don’t understand it…or some such combination.

Posted by Norma V. on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 7:24 PM (EDT):

Payoff or charity? It’s about the intent and perception. My interpretation is paying off (alleged) perpetrators so they move on discreetly.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 7:18 PM (EDT):

William…

“...hindering prosecution IS a crime, no matter if the accused has been convicted or not.”

So…you’re saying that whenever a person is ACCUSED of something…an ALLEGATION…then “it’s a crime” if that person (the accused), or other people, state that the INTENTIONS were/are not conducive of criminal activity; and you’re saying that when there is no prosecution started, as in the case of the Cardinal…and no hearing, at all…let alone a guilty verdict by a jury…that person/those people, are ‘automatically guilty’ of whatever the ALLEGATION says, as is the case in the ‘court of non-Catholic opinion’ with regard to the Cardinal. Ummmm. Sounds like what the Jewish high priest did to Christ. And nevermind Oregon Law, or any other State Law, or country’s laws ‘cause….there’s no prosecution case based on Goodstein’s ALLEGATION against the Cardinal. Period. And I can say that Goodstein used her article to cover up the truth in this matter and be more accurate about *that* than her ALLEGATION against the Cardinal is.

Posted by Lyle on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 6:38 PM (EDT):

What’s the big deal?

This is a non story and a total lie.

Never trust anything the New York Times rites.

Posted by Jacob S on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 6:35 PM (EDT):

Tom T - I did not mean to imply that the scandals do not reflect poorly on Church leadership. Clearly they do. What I mean to imply is only that this habit of singling out common practices - bad or not - which the Church and other organizations do and then saying that the Church is evil for doing them WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING that they are common practices is dishonest. Furthermore, this particular practice, bad or not and common or not, did not happen in the case that the reporter cited, which is even worse. Attack the practice or not, I don’t care. I don’t even know what I think about it. All I’m asking for is honesty and applying the same standards we (rightly) require for the safety of children in the church environment to all other environments.—
Sam - No one, or at least no one sane, claims that ordination removes a person’s ability or inclination to sin. Yes, it does change them and yes we believe that the Church was founded by Christ, but we also know that every Christian beginning with Peter himself, who denied Christ three times, and Judas who played a large rule in Christ’s execution, have been sinners. The deference to a person who has sacrificed so much to be a priest is deserved to a certain extent, but in no way does that imply that they cannot sin. I’m fairly certain you know this and know that we know this, but I’m not really sure why you bring this up - a priest (in general terms) is not by the (isolated) fact that he’s a priest necessarily any less likely to sin than a public school teacher. What I am trying to say (and all this argument which you are misinterpreting as “we aren’t worse than anyone else so leave us alone” is trying to say) is that a priest isn’t any more likely either.

Posted by Mike Friedman on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 6:26 PM (EDT):

I’m so glad I left Catholicism and its appalling treatment of women and children behind a long time ago.

Why can’t you guys just admit that at EVERY turn in this scandal you’ve done the wrong thing. You’ve let down parishes world wide, and showed that you’re just in it for yourselves. Protect the church and her own (unless those are children who have been raped) at all costs.

The utterly ironic thing is that because the church has done this for so long, it’s shown itself to be corrupt and utterly morally bankrupt….and now financially bankrupt too. By conducting itself in the manner it has, the hierarchy done exactly the thing it tried not to. Destroyed the church from within.

How anyone could take the side of a rapist (especially one that was a priest) over anything else utterly boggles the mind.

Posted by David on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 6:22 PM (EDT):

When it comes down to it, there are NO good excuses for giving any kind of support to a man that preys on children. It doesn’t matter who he is - he needs to be reported immediately to the police, and we all need to cooperate completely in making sure that person is locked away forever to protect our children. Children MUST be safe in our churches.

It is unconscionable that the church, right up the level of the Pope himself, is seen to be protecting these preditors. It HAS TO STOP, before the reputation of the church is ruined. It would be best if the Vatican acted quickly to remove Cardinal Dolan’s responsibilities.

Posted by Andre on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 6:20 PM (EDT):

Some people would defend the devil. Sad.

Just spoke to a former priest. He said when he left he go nothing, not a dime. He reminded me that he never brought shame to the church. Priest who have allegations against them and who were found guilty get a monthly stipend, health insurance, pension and car allocation.
Fair? No shows how sick the church deals with people.

Posted by William on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 6:08 PM (EDT):

Tina, hindering prosecution IS a crime, no matter if the accused has been convicted or not. See section C of the Oregon law.

Hindering prosecution

(1) A person commits the crime of hindering prosecution if, with intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony, or with the intent to assist a person who has committed a crime punishable as a felony in profiting or benefiting from the commission of the crime, the person:

(a) Harbors or conceals such person; or

(b) Warns such person of impending discovery or apprehension; or

(c) Provides or aids in providing such person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; or

(d) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation or deception, anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or

(e) Suppresses by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person; or

(f) Aids such person in securing or protecting the proceeds of the crime.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:48 PM (EDT):

“The one true statement in this article is that the Catholic Church is ‘damned if it does (pay off child molesting priests) and damned if it doesn’t (pay off child molesting priests).’”

That’s not a statement in the article, let alone any kind of ‘true statement’. Therefore, what *that* statement says about the actual statement is in error….it has nothing to do with the article. Here’s the statment, without editorializing:

“So it looks to me like this is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation.”

...and, the ones who created the no-win ‘damning’ situation are mere humans, not God…mere humans are not the Judge of mere humans. That’s God’s Job.

Posted by Damned on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:35 PM (EDT):

The one true statement in this article is that the Catholic Church is “damned if it does (pay off child molesting priests) and damned if it doesn’t (pay off child molesting priests).”

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:33 PM (EDT):

So…billy:

The Catholic Church wrote Goodstein’s article….?

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:32 PM (EDT):

“....it was covered up and allowed to continue and spread to other places, then some were paid off to resign. Almost as if rewarded for their abuse instead of sacked or exposed.”

Please post links to reputable sources that prove those allegations.

Posted by billy on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:28 PM (EDT):

The media doesn’t have to work to malign the Catholic Church - the Catholic Church is maligning itself without any help!

Posted by @RealityOffends on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:26 PM (EDT):

All the semantics and whitewashing in the world doesn’t hide the fact that children were abused, it was covered up and allowed to continue and spread to other places, then some were paid off to resign. Almost as if rewarded for their abuse instead of sacked or exposed.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 5:06 PM (EDT):

William….

Bad analogy on your part. First off: it’s not a business situation. The Church is not an employer and members of the clergy are not employees. Second, according to your content on this, the Pizza Hut employee is already guilty…must have been found guilty in a court of law…which isn’t the case with those who are merely accused…and the other cleric is not guilty (in this case the Cardinal) just because Goodstein ALLEGES in her article that he is. As I commented last, an ALLEGATION is NOT ‘automatically guilty’. An allegation is ‘finger pointing’, which Goodstein did in her article, and I know she did ‘cause I read that article, which sounds like a ‘battle cry’ for the commencement of a ‘witch hunt’. Goodstein has no proof (no links) to back her allegation against the Cardinal. Goodstein is attempting to ASSUME to know the Cardinal’s INTENTION…and the Church’s INTENTION while she posts no backing (no proof) of what the INTENTION is/was, and she quotes no Canon Law (Church Law). It appears to be that Goodstein has no backing and doesn’t dare quote Canon Law because Canon Law totally blows away her ‘case’. In fact, Goodstein didn’t make her case and doesn’t have a case here. Her article on this is more than just misleading, as Jimmy says; it’s false, preposterious and unjust, exactly as Cardinal Dole says. He’s called it as it is regarding the article…Goodstein’s ‘grandstand’ for her 15-minutes of ALLEGATION ‘fame’.

Posted by Nick on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 4:50 PM (EDT):

I’m 74 and Catholic. I grew up being taught that priests learn in seminary to see themselves as “alter Christus” (“another Christ”). Our local pastor, who’s in Cardinal Dolan’s generation, hammers away at that image frequently. I hope if/when the Cardinal comments on the Times report he’ll be able to cite passages in the gospels where Jesus says something in Aramaic analogous to an inference being “false, preposterous and unjust” when He answered questions.

Posted by William on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 4:38 PM (EDT):

Bad analogy.

Consider this: You own a pizza restaurant. One of your delivery drivers sometimes murders the customers he delivers pizzas to. You give him $20,000 to skip town.

That would be illegal and you would be subject to prosecution.

Posted by dan on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 4:36 PM (EDT):

Not sure why some think that this was somehow a protection of a priest or kept any priest from being prosecuted by secular authorities or hush money. Silliness.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 4:34 PM (EDT):

It mindboggling the amount of content demonstrationg that way too many Americans are under the misunderstanding that an allegation (finger pointing) means ‘automatically guilty’. Seems to be reminicent of the Salem witch hunts.

Posted by Alinka on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 4:33 PM (EDT):

That’s a joke, right? Poe’s law gets me each time.

Poster Kathy is right - There is no such paper as Milwaukee Post. It doesnt exist.

Posted by Continuum on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 4:33 PM (EDT):

In earlier reports, Dolan said that he made no payments to these pedophile priests.

Now, in the legal discovery process, we find out that the good Cardinal did in fact make payments to the priests.

Equivocate any way you want to, the Cardinal lied with his own mouth in his own words.

Now, what about the $300 million in assets that the Cardinal attempts to hide that should be used in settlement to the victims of his wayward priests.

Funny how Dolan can find thousands for the criminal priests, but his pockets are empty when it comes to taking care of his Chruch’s victims.

Posted by Katy Anders on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:52 PM (EDT):

That is some laughably insipid logic!

It is disheartening the lengths some believers will go to justify the horrible behavior of the Church.

It is NOT a condemnation or a repudiation of our beliefs to acknowledge it when our religious leaders fail us.

It makes us stronger to be able to honestly and soberly recognize and acknowledge those failings.

The author should be ashamed of this. It is bizarre and sickening and he knows it, were he only honest with himself.

Posted by Hdtex on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:47 PM (EDT):

Note that the answer was NOT: This is a standard severance payment given to all men leaving the priesthood for any reason, and is purely administrative and unrelated to any issues as to their laicization.

And seriously, comparing it to giving money to the homeless or cash to a child for their birthday?

What to give the pedophile who’s hard to shop for? A gift card to Kids R Us?

The Catholic Church….the only organization that give you a bonus incentive for child molestation. Complete and utter moral bankruptcy.

Posted by homer on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:47 PM (EDT):

Defending the payoff of child rapers? If it was found out that I was protecting child molesters, I would go to jail. Cardinal Timothy Dolan helped protect priests who repeatedly raped children. I can’t believe you are attempting to defend him. The Catholic Church hierarchy is SICK.

Your examples of giving money to a homeless person are significantly flawed, as a homeless person was, in theory, not working for you and committing a crime. Arguing the verbiage in articles published on the topic doesn’t change any of the facts. If someone does something illegal and you merely provide a way for them to avoid punishment, then you are still morally wrong. How on Earth are you going to convince anyone that you still hold the moral high ground on this?

Posted by Dan Verg on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:45 PM (EDT):

Of course we all know you won’t publish this. Thank you for thoroughly describing what can, in conclusion, ONLY be described as a payoff. The Catholic church is nothing but a worldwide criminal enterprise dedicated to graft, corruption and the rape of defenseless children. Thanks for confirming it.

Posted by Timothy on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:43 PM (EDT):

You equated charity with raping children by analogy. Jesus would be proud.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:38 PM (EDT):

Sam…

(1) An admittance is another matter, and it’s not part of the subject.

(2) Just because there are those in every group…even in families…that demonstrate a lack of personal dignity, doesn’t mean the ENTIRE group/family/nation/worldwide Church demonstrates a lack of dignity. Therefore, that type of logic: the total is exactly like one among it…doesn’t fit in such cases.

(3) Any group, etc., that has a divine foundation, is *still* a group made up of humans, and human behavior is not perfect—like all the Apostles, whose behaviors were not perfect. Did St. Peter *not* deny Christ three times?...as Christ said he would. Did St. Thomas *not* doubt…and did Christ *not* show him and tell him a thing or two? So…since Christ did not immediately kick out Sts. Peter and Thomas for those blatant mistakes (sins against the Son and against the Holy Spirit), then those who are merely *accused*—by other humans—of ‘whatever’, are not to get immediately kicked out. And most humans don’t necessarily go through ontological and metaphysical changes before making life decisions; mere human criteria is usually what most go by and, *perhaps* such changes occur later, as part of that territory—the territory of whatever chosen life. Your “...that gives them otherworldly abilities” is the best laugh I’ve had so far this week. There are Catholics who are not particular priests…most of us aren’t…who *experience* ‘otherworldly’ experiences/events (as some priests do, too), but no human is given such ‘abilities’...they are not human abilities…they are not worldly abilities…they are ‘otherworldly’, as you say; so, such experiences are *given* experiences/events…they are gifts…not associated at all with any human abilities. Must say…by your content, it appears to me to be that way too much is expected from other, mere humans.

(4) Glad you don’t give public school teachers “unthinking deference”, like most do. Too bad all public school teachers do not consider their careers as ‘callings’, like all priests do upon their ordinations. If they did, then perhaps there would be few accused public school teachers found guilty as there are few accused priests found guilty. Fact is, it’s not a public teacher problem nor a Catholic priest problem, but instead, it’s a human problem. There’s about the same percentage of this problem (around 1-2%)in *every* group made up of humans.

Posted by kathy on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:35 PM (EDT):

The Milwaukee Post? What’s the Milwaukee Post? No Milwaukeean I know has heard of it, including myself.

Posted by shecky on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:25 PM (EDT):

Dolan found the idea of payments to pedophiles scandalous enough that he initially denied that they were being made. Goldstein’s report shows that, whatever the legal and moral problems there might be with the payments, Dolan’s denial was a lie. Which is the recurring problem with the hierarchy. In an effort to avoid public scandal, it privately engages in scandalous behavior only to have it eventually surface, which looks even worse with hindsight. Akin’s article is an attempt to obfuscate and deflect the issue away, an attempt much like Dolan’s original denial, much like the hierarchy’s increasingly vocal and public politicization against insurance reform, gay marriage, and liberal nuns. Unfortunately, these distractions are having a hard time drawing attention away from the shameful behavior of the Church’s bishops and cardinals in dealing with predatory priests.

Posted by Samizdat on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 3:04 PM (EDT):

If a cardinal discovers there is reason to believe a priest has been molesting children, he should CALL THE POLICE. Do not laicize him, do not transfer him, do not retire him, do not pass “Go,” do not collect $200. If that cardinal chooses to do anything other than call the police, he should be booted from the Church, prosecuted for child endangerment and rot in jail next to the pedophile.

Posted by Sensus Fidei on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 2:39 PM (EDT):

Fantastic!! Now we have even more credibility to push far and wide with our profetus-forget-the-rest agenda. Thank you Cardinal Dolan!

Posted by Tom T on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 2:12 PM (EDT):

Jacob,
I don`t think people have to work very hard to make the Catholic Church look bad. Anyone whose followed the horror stories that came out of the trial in Phila. about secret lists of known abusers that were shredded, or read the sickening, sad, disgusting grand jury report that was published in the Philadelphia newspapers and learned from the trial that just concluded about what went on with hierarchy in the Cathedral during the reign of a now deceased Cardinal, which all very closely resembles the same problems from Minn. and Wisconsin, one can only just shake their head in sorrow. Cd. Dolan has a big problem with getting too cozy with politicians and the press and it all may very well have shot him to the top of the popularity polls as the “New York Rock Star”, but you don`t play in the snake pit without getting bit by both politicians and the press. It is my understanding that this detailed information came out from reading the bankruptcy filings. The question was ended in 2006 by then Archbishop Dolan and that ended it. Apparently there is more to the story that has yet to be revealed. I am no fan of the USCCB or Cd. Dolan or Card. Wuerl,for that matter. I think things have been handled very badly in the last forty years or so and anything that even smells like a cover-up or payoff the people who hate the Church are going to pounce on it. I realize the good Cardinal is trying to clean up and reverse the mess that we have accumulated within the Church, but in my humble view it is way to little and much to late. The damage has been done and Cd. Dolan will be the first one to tell you that. I don`t like snap and I don`t like what they are doing to our Church, however keep in mind they would`nt exist if there had not been a wide spread abuse problem and deliberate cover up by bishops. I know, I know, Cd. Dolan didn`t do it, the butler did. Anyway you spin it, it still smells.

Posted by Carol on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 2:11 PM (EDT):

So many bs comments. People are just hating on him ‘cause he doesn’t kowtow to the homosexual and womynist agenda.

God Bless Cardinal Dolan. He will only continue to be villified.

Posted by Richard Hugunine on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 2:06 PM (EDT):

Really? It’s all in the semantics for you.
When, I wonder, will you open your eyes and see Dolan as the protector of child abusers?

Posted by dan on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 2:00 PM (EDT):

Sam: if a priest admits to such conduct, chances are high that he is willing to ask to be removed from the clerical state. If not, the legal process is still not as long and drawn-out. Whatever the case may be, it is always the duty of the Ordinary to see to the former cleric’s financial well-being, at least to a certain, minimal extent. As for the rest of your comment, I still see no reason for “love.”

Posted by Sam on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 1:37 PM (EDT):

Maybe “expedited” wasn’t the best word. “Immediate” or “ipso facto” laicization are more accurate for priests who admit to abusing children.

I love the “we’re no worse than the local public school system” argument. because I thought the institutional church would maintain more of a sense of its own dignity.

Also I don’t consider my local public school system to have had a divine founding, nor do I consider its employees during the hiring process and training to have undergone an ontological, metaphysical change that gives them otherwordly abilities.

And while I respect public school teachers (my sister is one) I certainly don’t give them the sometimes unthinking deference that some people give to priests/hierarchy.

Posted by TGWWS on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 1:20 PM (EDT):

Re: “what one of her possible motives might be?”

Well, HELLO! This is exactly what happens to a political candidate when the media doesn’t like him/her. As soon as the person becomes prominently inconvenient, they start digging up dirt.

Hopefully some readers of Goodstein’s piece will realize that.

Posted by Jacob S on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 12:49 PM (EDT):

Tacticus - Read the bleeping article. In the case where the use of the word payoff is disputed, Dolan is providing healthcare after the priest is dismissed - not giving money so that the priest will not contest dismissal. Whether payoffs occurred is discussed later. The argument with the Goldstien piece is honesty.——
Sam - The process for laicizing priests must NECESSARILY take longer when the priest objects, because a court cannot assume guilt when the accused professes innocence until after evidence has been presented, and regardless of how heinous the crime they are accused of. That said, a system of expediting child abuse cases has been made (the CDF now handles those much more quickly than what used to happen). If it helps, think of these as plea bargains where changing the sentence is off the table.
-
Not that I’m sure that helps an awful lot, I’ve never liked plea bargains. But you can see that they are considered reasonable by most people simply because they speed things up.—
And finally, Sam, Snap is insane and we aren’t saying that not being worse than public schools is good enough. We’re saying if it’s a problem with us, then it must be a problem with them. Or, equivalently, if it’s not a problem with them then it’s not a problem with us. And few people seem to think that the payoff things, anyway, are problematic with them.
-
So don’t put this purely in the context of the Church being evil. These sorts of payoffs are either universally bad or they’re ok. If they’re bad, then lets attack them universally, not just in the Church because certain types of people don’t like the Church for other reasons and want to make it look bad.

Posted by alvc on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 12:48 PM (EDT):

Tacitus took the words out of my mouth. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Posted by Tina on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 12:48 PM (EDT):

Sam….

Your replies to Jimmy’s content—that you took out of context—are circular, at best, and irrational at worst, given Jimmy’s ENTIRE article. For example:

“Yes it was because it shows a sick system that for some bizarre reason doesn’t consider the sexual abuse of minors grounds for expedited laicization.”.....when the Catholic Church does, indeed, consider expedited laicization, as Jimmy clearly points out.

“....“we’re no worse than your local school system in handling abuse’ argument.”....and few complain about the manner in which the U.S public school system handles the ‘argument’....their manner is not front page headlines in the slanted, secular media like the Church’s handling always is….the same way the U.S. public school system handles it. So…maybe complaints should first be made about how the U.S. public schools handle it….because it’s in the PUBLIC domain, not the private one. In other words and since there are far few priests in comparison with far greater numbers of public school employees who are accused of child molestation (and having kids with students), get the log out of *that* eye first before pointing to a speck in another eye.

One more pertinent point: since the word ‘accused’ does not mean “found guilty”, in the U.S justice system, the accused has the right to defend him/herself or even come to a settlement with the plaintiff. The same applies within the Church (as is pointed out in the article), and if the Church didn’t operate this way, then any member of the Church ‘should’ be convicted of a any crime he/she is *accused* of…and if that WERE the case, then there would be those who would be up in arms about that, instead. But, since that’s not the case within the Church, and since no one complains about the way the U.S justice system works, then complaints about how the Church handles such matters is a complaint about how the U.S. handles such matters and thus, such complaints are irrational.

Posted by dan on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 12:21 PM (EDT):

Sam: “expidited laicization” is when the cleric asks to be removed from the clerical state, which is always the way the Church would like to proceed. As to the other questions in your opening paragraph, the aswers are yes and yes. In your second comment, you are missing the point. SNAP is now upset about swift removal. Third, why do you love that?

Posted by Laura C. on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 11:28 AM (EDT):

I think Cardinal Dolan was very wise to get rid of this man as quickly as possible. I don’t view this as a pay off…but as he said an act of charity so the priest could leave in a timely manner. After all, the children would have been in danger if he had stayed longer. It is also very true that public school systems put employees on paid leave as they investigate. This is just another attack on one of our stars of the church, because of Cardinal Dolan’s courage to stand up for the church and be a model leader for all of us at this time.

Posted by Sam on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 11:04 AM (EDT):

“But regardless of whether Becker was given money to encourage him to not fight laicization, let’s go with the premise that some priests were. Is that a bad thing?”

Yes it was because it shows a sick system that for some bizarre reason doesn’t consider the sexual abuse of minors grounds for expedited laicization. Is there anything less Christian one can do than take the innocence of a minor? Is there anything that can more disqualify one from continuing as a priest than sating one’s lust with a child?

“One of the things the SNAP people have been up in arms about is that sex abusers must be ejected from the priesthood as swiftly as possible.”

Those silly SNAP people, haven’t they learned that they best way to handle an abusive priest is to leave him in unrestricted ministry? You can include every parent, rational adult, and person containing a shred of decency to the list of people who are up in arms about abusers being ejected from the priesthood as swiftly as possible.

“Also, for what it’s worth, Mark Shea points out that the exact same procedure is used to get sexually problematic public school teachers out of their jobs and away from kids.”

I love it when defenders of the institutional church use the “we’re no worse than your local school system in handling abuse” argument.

Posted by Silence is Golden on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 10:07 AM (EDT):

tacitus,

How cleavor of you to define charity by demonstrating the opposite.

Posted by dan on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 9:49 AM (EDT):

The law (canon 1350.2) requires the ordinary to provide for those clerics who have been dismissed from the clerical state, if the former cleric is truly in need. So, this is for a priest who has committed some crime and been literally thrown out of the rank of clerics: even he is to be given support. When any priest voluntarily leaves the clerical state, financial support is often given. When a person leaves a religious community, the same thing happens. It’s the way it works and I find the comment of Dolan to be quite correct. Tacitus, what’s the point of having law if the Pope ignores it at will? Do you really want to have the Pope, motu proprio, kicking priests out without any legal process whatsoever? Semantics? Well, any article depends on semantics. I think Mr. Akin’s commentary is reasonable.

Posted by William F. Folger on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 9:39 AM (EDT):

Kudos to Jimmy Akin. May I suggest that Laurie be directly invited to respond in the Comments under the provisos 1) ~ 700 words limit to respond only to Mr. Akin’s article above, 2) she does not use comment-space to inject irrelevant other matters/agendas or to take shots at Catholics and 3) she explicitly acknowledges that *before* submitting her comment, she proof-read it for clarity and professionalism for the sakes of readers re her conveying understanding AND leaving no obvious “unconnected dots” behind for readers to just wonder about

Posted by K C Thomas on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 8:11 AM (EDT):

MANY OF THE MEDIA OWNERS AND REPORTERS WANT TO MALIGN THE CATHOLIC CHUCH.THE MAIN REASON IS THAT THE CHURCH IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION FIGHTING AGAINST THE “PLEASURE CULTURE” WHICH INCLUDES THE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES ETC AND THE FERVENCY IN REDEFINING MARRIAGE. THEY WISH A WORLD WHEREIN MAN HAS FREEDOM TO MARRY MAN, WOMAN, ANIMAL, FURNITURE OR ONE’S OWN FATHER , MOTHER OR BROTHER OR SISTER. WHAT A TRND INDEED !

Posted by LoneThinker on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 7:51 AM (EDT):

# 1 Ah, seeking honest journalism was never really achieved. Sin spins each of us to go for the other’s jugular or cover our own side’e bottom when integrity, justice and truth are negotiable.
#2 Anyone who read the original story would realise it was a gift in charity, not a bribe- bishops can use canon law in their own, and if necessary the Vatican’s own Court systems to drop seriously sick men from the ranks of priesthood.

Posted by Mar Arena on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 1:25 AM (EDT):

It’s totaly unproffesional for journalist to bring us inaccurate information.. Anyone can story tell but it takes a good journalist to accurately report and be honest with the information their readers are getting.. It should be a thing called moral, ethics and just reporting without taking anyones side..That is what a good journalist does.. I would never read a story by anyone who I research their story only to find it’s a bunch of lies. Alot of them jump on the wagon against the Ctholic Church..but when murder is committed inside other religions, all you see and read are small articles and mentions of them in the media. Be fair and be honest is what everyone expects of journalist! Thanks for this article and bringing out the most appreciated TRUTH.

Posted by tacitus on Friday, Jun, 1, 2012 12:08 AM (EDT):

Charity is a gift freely given, no strings attached. If the pedophile priests were given the money in exchange for them agreeing to resign from the priesthood, then let’s call it what it is, a payoff.

Sure, there is nothing illegal about that, companies do it all the time in cases where employees are accused of sexual harassment—though it tends to be the victim who receives the money—in exchange for an agreement to resign or to a transfer.

You can argue semantics until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church made a habit of buying the swift resignations of pedophile priests. Just because the process of laicization can’t handle this type of situation with suitable speed and decorum doesn’t make these payoffs any more appropriate. Nor does the fact that it’s the cheaper way out.

If there was nothing wrong with the payouts, then why has the diocese said that they will no longer be making them?

Also, the Church writes its own rules, and it’s not exactly a democratic institution with all the messiness that entails. The Pope has total authority to change the process—all he has to do is say the word, and priests who commit gross offenses such as rape and child abuse can be summarily dismissed, without the need for a payoff.

Maybe if you we’re too busy questioning the motives of journalists then perhaps you could spend more time helping the Church get its own house in order.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, “A Triumph and a Tragedy,” is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”